Eye on ‘Gay Muslims’

Exodus International, a Christian organisation, has produced a smartphone app that has drawn predictable criticism from homosexualist quarters. According to David Allison of Outrage: “It creates the wrong attitude if you try to persuade people there is a choice and it can be cured like an ailment or an illness, as if you need to be. It isn’t: you are born with it, live with it and die with it.”

Allow me to give a voice to someone who would, in the homosexualist paradigm, be classed as “gay”, but whose opinions, feelings and preferences in life are considered by such campaigners as irrelevant. This is a comment from a young man on the StraightStruggle group:

Perhaps someone should tell David Allison that, conversely, he is creating the wrong attitude by telling people they are born with it, live with it and die with it.

The irony is that when it comes to people seeking growth and healing beyond homosexuality, people like him do not offer the same options for freedom of choice and expression that he would demand for those like himself who wish to embrace the homosexual lifestyle. It’s completely hypocritical. In a society where I can legally pay for a sex change, drink my liver out and have unprotected sex with a stranger – the same evil forces that would support such behaviours would prevent me from seeking psychological growth into my existing biological potential.

David Allison, you were born with the potential to make sperm, you live your life making sperm, and you will die making sperm. Do you think your body’s trying to tell you something? 😉

Why do the gays hate the ex-gays so much? What deep nerve is our presence striking that makes them so vicious in condemning us?

A little note for the anti-Muslim bigots of Harry’s Place and the Spittoon, who have recently taken to linking to some of our blog posts. Welcome, and feel free to read: it could be a cure for your ignorance.

But every time you repeat your own invented terms, like “curing gays” and “ex-gays”, and put them in quote marks to imply that you read them here, you just prove how dishonest you are. You can’t even read a few articles and get the correct gist. Sure, you’re going to disagree, but at least disagree with what we actually say, not your pathetic strawmen. One of you couldn’t even spell my name right in his article!

Or go ahead, roll around in your own filth if you want. It’s your right.

Like his friends, he holds the Muslim community in contempt. (“Homophobes!”) And as such, he stands no chance of making a difference. With this latest “coming out”, I’m sure he realises he will never be invited to speak to Muslims again, except in the depths of his university department, for whoever thinks that is a proper way to learn Islam. Yes, study at the feet of non-Muslims too! Indeed, many of them are much fairer in their treatment of Islam than twisted people like De Sondy.

As a commenter at Harry’s Place put it: “A courageous young man. Very much like Irshad Manji.” Yes, very much. Although at least Manji is explicit that her purpose of rewriting Islam for herself was to justify being with her lesbian lover.

Agree with this statement or disagree, it is the opinion of a recent PhD graduate at Glasgow University who desperately wishes he could be as celebrated a Muslim progressive as his idols like Reza Aslan. Trouble is, he’s just not as talented.

Amanullah De Sondy certainly hasn’t remained quiet about issues that make him itch, yet his views on homosexuality have been strangely muted. This despite the fact that people who have known him for years say that they expected him to come out with something eventually. Well here it is (or almost).

It is very important to him to insist he’s an “academic“, because that apparently gives him the right to say whatever he wants about Islam and we Westerners are supposed to take it at face value, despite the fact that academia itself is a system of presenting and challenging views based on research. But that doesn’t make everything novel or controversial worthwhile in itself. Some academics are still trotting out the discredited theories of yesteryear, and Islamic Studies is one of the most affected by this problem due to the persistence of classical Orientalist agendas linked to colonialism and modern-day warmongering.

And without meaning offence to everyone at the University of Glasgow, I wouldn’t study Islam there any more than I would boast about a degree in English Literature from Kabul University.

De Sondy seems to fantasise about cloning himself and taking over Scotland, judging by one rather huffy letter penned last year:

I smell worry in the words and actions of the political Islamists, Mosques and our so-called Islamic leaders who want to cage and control the sentiments of the true progressive Scottish Muslims, but this new wave will emerge in full force, and time will then be the judge of who are the best partners in creating a flourishing Scotland.

However, much like his blog which he optimistically titled “Progressive Scottish Muslims”, adding an ‘s’ on the end doesn’t mean that you’re more than one person.

We at the StraightWay Foundation have long taken a keen interest in the controversies built around the person of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, especially as regards his stated opinions about homosexuality in the light of his understanding of the Qur’an and Sunnah – opinions which do not differ from those of the vast majority of Islamic scholars and ordinary Muslims in the West and worldwide, except that in certain respects they are better explained and expressed.

The recent refusal from the UK government to grant him a visa has rightly met with criticism from British Muslims, this article by Abdul-Rehman Malik being a good example. From our perspective, the most worrying thing is where mainstream Muslim views are used as the basis for excluding someone from a country: will they then seek to root out “homophobic imams” and deport them? Find me a non-“homophobic” imam, please, then tell me that Qaradawi’s views are extreme…

You can find numerous articles on this blog discussing his views and statements, including a summary of the Zionist- and homosexualist-led storm surrounding his July 2004 visit to London. This time, however, we decided not to weigh in with any public comments – but would like to extend a word of appreciation to Imaan, a group we have serious disagreements with, for a letter they sent to the Guardian:

We agree with Muslim community leaders concerned at the Home Office decision to ban Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Report, February 8), on the grounds that it won’t “tolerate … those who seek to justify … acts of terrorist violence or express views that could foster inter-community violence”. On the contrary, Qaradawi has condemned the London bombings, the 9/11 attacks and other acts of terrorism, stating these are against Islamic beliefs.

In banning Qaradawi, the Home Office is contributing to a climate of Islamophobia, which will impact on all Muslims, including our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members.

We make clear our disagreements with all faiths that are regressive on homosexuality, and demand that Muslim leaders are treated equally with other faith representatives, who are not generally banned.

If the government is to engage hearts and minds of the Muslim community, it would do well to engage in dialogue with Muslim leaders rather than demonise them or succumb to the calls of politicians whose agenda is motivated by a bias regarding the conflict in the Middle East.

Ubaid-ur RehmanSecretary, Imaan – the LGBT Muslim’s support group

Even the vile and odious Peter Tatchell stated his disagreement with the banning, even if only to repeat his inaccurate and irrational – and in places downright false and slanderous – criticisms of the Sheikh. And of course most of the commenters after him are just as ready to prove their ignorance!

It’s always astounded me how willing some in the gay activist community are to celebrate someone surgically altering their body to “become” who they perceive to be internally. Yet when I determine I want to reorient my sexual orientation, which does not require drastic surgery or body altering drugs, according to those same activists, I am the one doing damage to myself and others by simply holding to a particular worldview that brings me contentment and sexual reorientation. The transgendered are applauded for radically altering their bodies while I am scolded for holding the belief that I would be happier living out who I truly am regardless of my past life as a gay identified man. It’s ok for someone to ignore what they were obviously born as but for people like me … we are told being “gay” is genetic and should be embraced because we have no other option.

People who use the “ex-gay” description for themselves (we don’t!) can also appeal to their rights. The post above reminds me of something I wrote questioning the links made between L, G, B and T. Do read it and respond!

And apparently our views just don’t square with the rest of society. There surely can’t be anyone (say observant religious people who aren’t Moslem fanatics) who would agree with this “anti-gay” stance?

And there’s of course no distinction to be made between considering homosexuality less than “acceptable” and OPPOSING GAYS (as people). Just a matter of semantics, eh? It’s not the media’s job to quibble over such things if it will make those backward Islamo-fascists look bad.

The article takes another bash at Iqbal Sacranie, while admitting that his statement appears to be “in line with the vast majority of Muslim opinion“! Perhaps you could add the same for Yusuf al-Qaradawi? Nah, let’s just quote some MPs to attack Islam as “absurd”, “medieval”, “unacceptable” and “deplorable” views belonging to “7th-century Arabia”.

Check out the enlightened comments on the PinkNews site. Makes you just wanna join their chariot of freedom and tolerance, doesn’t it? [Update: the most bigoted comments have now been deleted.]

It’s a question I ask myself often. I haven’t done enough research to present my own thesis. I do assert that it has more to do with campaigning than common sense – i.e. rather than it being about righting wrongs, it was a case of convincing the right people of certain things. A successful campaign, no doubt – but it hasn’t reached its ultimate conclusion. The public (even the non-religious public) is not 100% free of “homophobic” attitudes, but homosexualists might think that the hard work is all over, and things will change just with the passage of time (and the continuation of the present strategies). Still, these pesky Muslims aren’t buying the whole “LGBTIQ rights” thing like the Christians and others did. Being against sexual abominations isn’t yet seen by mainstream Muslims as a betrayal of the faith’s principles. So on with the Queer Muslim Reformation…

Take a look at these interesting articles and let us know what you think. I take it to be a debate between a Christian and an atheist.

Readers of this blog will know that we’re no fans of Peter Tatchell, and have had cause to mention his odious name more often than we’d care to. Perhaps our writing has paid off, because a young man who attended a talk by Tatchell in Edinburgh reports the following:

It was an imformative and very well attended evening, approximately 120-140 people, ending on a slightly tense note. The final question accepted from the audience was from a person who is obviously very informed about Tatchell’s work and in particular his views on the Muslim faith and it’s stance against homosexuality. This man made quite a speech, mostly in opposition of Tatchell’s views. Unfortunately we were out of time for there to be any real debate and Tatchell was only able to give a short reply.

You may remember the latest OutRage “Imam Backs Shariah Shock” and the interesting developments in terms of the British “gay Muslim” group Imaan (formerly Al-Fatiha UK) calling Peter Tatchell an Islamophobe. I’m of a similar opinion, as I expressed along with others on their forum discussion.

Now Brett Lock has written an opinion piece in the magazine he edits, namely the Gay Humanist Quarterly (full PDF available there – see p.13). Entitled “Submission & Denial”, the article criticises Imaan for complaining about Tatchell & Co. singling out Islam:

If some of Imaan’s leaders feel Islam is being unfairly singled out as “uniquely reactionary”, perhaps they should ask themselves when they last heard a priest or rabbi in Britain defending the death penalty for homosexuality.

A Unique Perspective

Here we discuss the concept and emergence of "Gay Muslims", considering that homosexual activity is clearly forbidden in Islam. We kindly advise Muslims struggling with same-sex attraction, affirming that nobody is sinful for what they feel inside. As for those people who try to distort the religion, we refute them soundly with evidence.